Independent schools and Labour government

[Turquoisesilver]

Has it actually been outlined what the proposals are? I believe there would effectively be a 20% fee increase, is that correct?

I think it's been reported already that SEN schools will be excepted; I'd be astonished if they didn't make an exception for this.

A more difficult question is the whole matter of schools that are helpful for kids with some mild level of SEN but do not define themself as "SEN schools." I am always seeing requests on here for "My son is being assessed for ASD and is not coping well in his state school classroom; we are looking for a nurturing prep school that has small classes for him." Some less academic preps (or maybe some secondary schools that are specifically havens for quirky kids on the ASD spectrum who have talents in STEM and the like? Does such a thing exist?) may not be officially "special schools" or "SEN schools" but they do play a role for making life easier for children who don't quite fit in elsewhere. I wonder if some of these schools might have to make a choice between officially designating themselves a "special school" (which can be stigmatizing for leavers) or giving up charitable status etc. and therefore having to charge more.

Then there are the schools which provide a safe and supportive place to study for kids who didn't pass the 11-plus but live in areas where the "other" alternative is rough and doesn't attract good teachers. I know a couple of people who paid for private schooling for this very reason. In general, I think that if a Labour govt is going to make private schools more expensive, there is a need to rethink the 11-plus system in areas where that is still a thing. The 11-plus system forces many parents into private schooling at both ends: parents end up paying for prep school to cram their kids for grammar; parents of kids who fail the test may end up paying for private schools to escape the local secondary modern, because secondary moderns frankly are not great for the most part (the data on the 11-plus system shows very clearly that lower-achieving kids do worse in 11-plus systems than they do in comprehensive systems). If grammar schools are allowed to persist, it could be argued that governments have a duty to make sure that private alternatives are affordable. Conversely, if private schools become less affordable, perhaps we need to rethink systems that effectively force a lot of caring parents into paying for private schooling.

In general I am a big fan of "great state schools for all," but I'm not fanatical about this, and I can see that private schools do have a role in some situations.

I will eat my hat if this happens, seriously.

Most parents are very reluctant to move kids from schools where they are happy, so couples in this position will mostly pay for kids' fees by digging into savings and using the money they would otherwise have put into pensions and kids' housing deposits, until their kids reach the next stage of education at least; the second-income earner will then need to continue earning to make up for all the various financial holes left by this, and also to pay for tutoring and extra-curricular and other things they previously got at their wraparound private school.

I'm sympathetic to many of the arguments here from private school parents, but a lot of these threats sound awfully empty to me, based on the families I know who are currently skimping on pensions and kids' housing deposits already to pay for private schools and are nervous about this already. I would be astonished if any of them just stopped working and retired to become a SAHM. There are just too many other things that need paying for these days (and women quitting careers long-term are taking a major financial risk; we all know this)

And if it goes through, I'll stop work and send my younger two to state school. The NHS will loose a senior doctor. But the state schools around us have no quality after/before school care, no after school sports etc and I won't pay for them to sit with a childminder.

That doesn't make any sense. I mean, you could easily pay for extra curriculars, tutoring and wrap around care from a senior doctor's salary and have a shit ton of money left over.

I agree with you on this ^there are some really great private schools out there, let's look at what they're doing right and also strengthen the requirement for them to provide services to the community', Labour take a short-sighted dog in the manger approach which won't end up helping anyone very much^

It really frustrates me that no one looks at why SEN children are being sent to private schools by their parents in fairly large numbers. The secondary system is often when it falls apart for children like mine but no one seems to be worried about that goes it doesn't score them political points.

Before switching or autistic DD to private she had self harming tics and barely spoke, in less than a year she's become a different child.

It's unjust that other children like her don't get the same opportunity but doing this won't change that.

I'd much rather we had evidence based policy I'd vote for a party that routinely worked in that way.

Child care is definitely one of (many different) reasons that people use private schools.

If the state school doesn’t have wrap around care then options may be very limited. Even if it does have wrap around care it may be of poor quality. Behaviour standards were much lower than during the school day and kids who were physically bullied asked to leave at ours. No suggestion of asking the bullies to leave though.

There are no childminders in some areas (high house prices), au pairs are no longer an option due to Brexit so you are left with a nanny. Only full time is now an option as understandably people need to earn a living and childcare is in short supply but the cost of that is easily more than two sets of prep fees plus wrap around.

I would (and have) choosen to be a SAHM in simar circumstances even though I could earn a salary that is similar to a senior doctor. As almost all of the professional women, lawyers, doctors, accountants, academics etc around me have made a similar choice at some point for a period of time at least.

I totally appreciate this is a small proportion of the world that this impacts though. And I am not suggesting this needs sympathy for people who can afford to stay at home. But to suggest that professional salaries mean everyone can or find or would be willing to take up childcare solutions available without private schools is wrong.

I agree it is unlikely that many parents will move kids and drop out of working to become a SAHM. But higher fees may shift the calculations for future parents in terms of returning to work or continuing work post the nursery years.

It occurs to me that if struggling private schools've got any sense, they might want to look into providing afterschool care that provides clubs and tutoring, with minibuses laid on to pick kids up from the local state schools! I know parents who would pay for that.

Only works for the ones that are in the right location, obviously....

Why would they want to do that?

As it would cost a fortune and take resources away from the school itself. Minibuses are used for the schools and teachers teach - they aren't all sitting around twiddling their thumbs after 3.30! And the clubs are for school pupils.

I think working hours might change more than you think. Most of the well off women I know who have gone for the 'state plus' option either don't work at all, or work very limited hours, and that's partly because it takes a lot of time and flexibility to facilitate the 'plus'. It's been a conscious decision for several mums I know - go back to 'proper' work to pay for private school, or stay at home, partly to arrange children's after school activities. That may only be a small proportion the population, but it's a much larger proportion of the kind of families who might be priced out of private schools by a 15% fee increase. It's not just about the tax income - it's also a backwards step for women's working. It would be very difficult for me to do the job I do if school finished at 3.15 (and had a much earlier finish one day a week, as some of the secondaries here do). Mine are too old for a childminder, but I wouldn't want them at home every day for ages on their own, and even if that was OK, I certainly wouldn't be able to ferry them around to clubs.

We used a private school with guaranteed wraparound 7.30am to 6pm as we couldn't see any other practical way to keep our teaching jobs.

Private schools don't muck around with 'oh reception can't do after school club' or 'we don't have spaces on a Tuesday till 2027'. Parental.demand is generally responded to. Our one also provides club 8am to 5pm in nearly all school holidays, for all ages 2.5 up. Not so relevant for us but very handy for people in other types of job (I remember holiday childcare for age 4 was really tricky otherwise).

My neighbour and some friends have taken the mickey but some of them use a nanny, which for 2 x DC is pretty much the same cost as our private primary for 1 x DC!

So we are paying privately to continue working in the state sector...funny old world.

@user1477391263 I am one such mother who only works to pay fees. I will not be working if I can't afford the fees. I most certainly cannot absorb a sudden 20% increase so my dc will definitely be moved. One thing I know is that private school dc come and go all the time. It's life if I can't afford the fees I won't be getting into financial difficulty for it.

But I have a dc who can't cope with loud noises gets stressed easily and I've worked very hard to keep them in a small class as I don't think they'd cope at all in a big school. I actually think I will move countries as dh job allows it tbh if we are priced out of the U.K. we are already looking ti do this. Annoys me when people who have no idea of the realities of this are getting their pitch forks out.

I understand people not liking PS but this is not a good thing it is Labour abusing a policy to please people who don't like them with no real understanding that not everyone who attends them are elitist wealthy people but they certainly will be if this policy goes through:

The other issue @Phineyj is that even if you can recruit a nanny, if they leave, or are sick, or need to take maternity leave, you’re stuck.

Hello 👋

I hope someone can point us in a direction that can help. Our kids are just not taking to the schooling system. They are doing well at school but they’re just lacking what we feel they need for the real world and it’s taking my husband and I to keep them going. The skills they’re learning at school are so outdated and not fit for real world stuff. Does anyone know of any online skills dev platforms that teach fundamental skills to teens?

any guidance would be very helpful.

thank you
Megs x

I work in the public sector too. Paying for private school enables me to commit to my job whilst knowing that my secondary age children are not only supervised but also kept busy and happy while I'm at work. The fact that the government wants to charge me an extra 20% to do this, irritates me a little.

Yes, although the costings that I’ve seen just don’t seem to make financial sense. The govt will lose out on revenue that private schools generate, and have to pay more on the already squeezed state sector. It feels like the politics of envy to me

The demographics don’t support this. Birth rates have dropped tremendously.

l think there should be no private schools at all.

Maybe start your own thread @MeganS77 . If you want real life the last thing you want IMO is an online tool. What about helping out with Scouts or Brownies etc? DD did this from 14 as a Young Leader and lots of life skills like responsibility, giving and receiving instructions, planning, being part of a team etc.

1. It won’t be anything close to 20%. Private schools have been working out ways to keep increases to fees minimal, like making more money from other sources.
2. Much of the increase that does happen over the next few years will be the knock on effects of inflation and COL; look at the threads about this already.
3. Private school fees were already rising far about inflation over the past 25 years, well before the COL crisis. I think it’s OK to feel annoyed at Labour, but shouldn’t the parents on this thread also feel a bit annoyed at the way their schools have taken parents for granted for the last two and a half decades or so? I know some of the increases came about because of changes to the way teachers’ pensions are funded, but a fair bit of it also came from souped-up facilities and other stuff.

Perhaps there will be some growth in more “affordable” private school models that provide good academics and wrap around care, but without the OTT facilities or tiny class sizes. It will be quite interesting to watch.

If it does go ahead, when do we think that the increase in school fees will come into force?

I would imagine that any measures would be challenged legally. The VAT measures would surely be a lot more straightforward than any removal of charitable status? Some of these schools spring from trusts set up many hundreds of years ago and are complicated by land ownership etc.

I have two DCs in private school and have just had a letter saying fees will go up by up to 11 per cent this year because of the cost of living crisis. I'm sure there were a lot of parents who had to have a stiff drink after that email came through.

I know this sounds terrible, but in our case, if the fees become too much, we'll consider moving our youngest to the well regarded state sixth form when the time comes. And as we live in one of the nice parts of town near the school, and he's reasonably bright, I can bet he'll take the place of a much more deserving kid from a lower income family (It's done on distance, but extra curricular stuff and grades are taken into consideration as well). The kid who we would displace will probably end up at the slightly shit local FE college. So, our kid will be fine but it's tough on anyone else.

The major problems in state schools are lack of sufficient funding and the disproportionate impact of the behaviour of some very troubled children whose behaviour affects others. These children's behaviour is usually enabled by dysfunctional parents unwilling or unable to parent effectively. Parents who haven't helped children manage their anger if other emotions, parents who have no boundaries or consequences, children who from an early age are involved in risky behaviour around drink, sex, drugs, crime.

I'd be amazed if @MeganS77 doesnt come back with an ad for exactly this.

I work in a comprehensive and whenever I have to ring home because a tutee has breached a behaviour threshold, they invariably have significant SEN.

Very few children are simply "naughty" for no reason.

I would imagine that any measures would be challenged legally. The VAT measures would surely be a lot more straightforward than any removal of charitable status? Some of these schools spring from trusts set up many hundreds of years ago and are complicated by land ownership etc

Yes, I expect that Labour will announce they there will be some sort of study in to the complexities of changing status, and that it's date to report will be pushed back (and gradually 'forgotten' about) and that instead they will announce VAT on fees. Salami style, I expect. So probably not straight to 20%, more like 5% (and then increase in frog-boiling increments)

If Labour go ahead with this (assuming they are elected), I would think they’ll do it as soon as possible, perhaps in the first Budget. I’m guessing though. In the past, some tax rises have been pre-announced so we’ve been given warning (eg the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% in 2011 was announced around 6 months before it was introduced). However, the problem with pre-announcing a tax rise is that it gives people a chance to plan ahead to try to avoid any rise, so I’m not convinced we’d get prior warning. It may happen overnight, and then the legal arguments will start.

Given the number of historic VAT legal cases, I can’t see that this would be easily implemented. If the legal experts can’t even agree on the tax treatment of a Jaffa cake, how on earth the Labour Party think that imposing VAT on historic institutions with complex structures is a straightforward change is beyond me.

I would guess it would rumble on for years, but what is unclear is what happens in the meantime.

Thank you @Another76543 for that. It give a lot to think about.

Our DCs are happy at their school and DC1 will hopefully be going into L6 in September so we could take the hit even if it comes in very quickly. It might be a bit harder for DC2.

Our school has always put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the community; it’s been doing for over 400 years and I can’t see that stopping. I think this is a wonderful thing, and part of the reason we love the school. But future parents may baulk at paying for amenities for the wider community that they themselves don’t use.

I’m not sure that even the imposition of VAT is as straightforward as they think it is. Changes in tax law always end up having unintended consequences. For example, the pasty tax fiasco!

The problem with introducing even a 5% VAT rate would be that schools would then be VAT registered and could then claim the full amount of their input VAT (some of which will have been charged at 20%). That would then hugely effect the calculations of how much revenue the government would raise.

Maybe schools would be barred from claiming vat